mattp

Pope- This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. You deliberately offer an insulting provocation about how bolt clippers feel so guilty, and the discussion degenerates further. I've called Sphinx and others childish or worse when they respond that way, but you knowingly tried to stir the pot with your rediculous retort. Do you think that Dwayner's post - several pages ago - helped promote any useful discussion? I think not.

Touche, Pope! You turn my rhetoric right back at me. I actually have been to Castle Rock this summer, and I walked right past that line, but I did not look at it. Since your "goal" is for there to be fewer new routes and less bolting, let's emphasize that issue and not use the "ground up" ethic as a smokescreen. The practice of hanging on hooks in order to install a bolt is precisely one of those techniques I think should be entirely discontinued. The result - just about every single time this is done, is for there to be a bolt left near an ideal hook move; very rarely is the result that a bolt is left where it can convenientliy be clipped on the lead and efficiently protects a crux move. In the context of crag climbing, I believe it is very selfish to focus on the pleasure and satisfaction of the first ascentionist- I don't think this ethic that you promote is something to be aspired to or promoted.

I agree with Pope that "excommunication" would be a harsh remedy for someone who is merely abrasive. However, Dwayner is not only "merely abrasive" but, whether he admits it or not, he knows by this point that his repeated interruption of every discussion that has any tangential relationship to his issue is purely that: interruption. Folks have been banned from this site for less. I don't think there is a single poster on this site who has been as disruptive of other's attempts to carry on a thoughtful discussion as has Dwayner. If somebody interrupts a bolting discussion to say that they went to bed with your mother last night, it is probably going to be deleted or somebody will fire back a one-line retort or even a half a page, and the discussion can then continue. Dwayner's intentional interruption is just about always expanded into several pages of pointless diatribe in a debate about who is the greater jerk. There are probably not more than a couple of times in the entire history of this board where he has sprayed his garbage into a bolting discussion and the discussion was thereafter brought back on track so that a variety of other people could state their views on the original topic. In this arena (discussions of climbing ethics) I do in some measure hold Dwayner to a higher standard than those who so often resort to threats of violence or stupid potty jokes. This is largely because I think Dwayner has more to say than that. Figger Eight entirely mischaracterizes my position when suggesting that I would require staunch ethicists to "play nicey nicey" in bolting discussions. They don't. But look back at the history of this board. These "stanch ethicists" that he may rightfully revere have greatly discouraged, and in large measure they have prevented serious and thoughtfull discussion -- for THREE YEARS!! IT IS NOT JUST DWAYNER, though, but in this arena (bolting ethics) the personal attacks and hostile rhetoric almost always start with some deliberate provocation from one of these heroes of the staunchly ethical climber's union. I'm not sure, but it may even be true to say that every single time the bolting debate has ever gone south, and it just about always DOES go south, the descent into hell started with some purposefully insulting bit of anti-bolt rhetoric. The "free speech" argument is just plain silly. Dwayner is the one who is not allowing others to make their points and, on balance, "free speech rights" would be promoted by keeping him out of these discussions unless he can find a different approach to the subject. Look back at my post that started this current debate. I did not advocate that he be permanently banned but I said I MIGHT advocate a temporary suspension. If you believe that we have a right to discuss bolting ethics without having the discussion flushed down the toilet every time it is brought up, what would you have Jon and Timmy do here? Another alternative that has been suggested is that somebody just start editting the hell out of Dwayner's posts. I think the "free speech" advocates on the site would probably find that a lot MORE offensive.

I agree with you about that thing, Pope, but I believe you have just shown how little you get out. That aesthetic masterpiece has been there for several years, if I am not mistaken. You are right to argue that, just because your proposed rules of ethical bolting are old does not mean that they are no longer relevant. However, the "ground up" ethic is not only outdated, but it is just plain nonsense. And I suspect that you and others who advocate this approach are using it as a cloak for the real point that you hope such a rule would mean fewer routes being put up. A thoughtful and responsible routesetter can do a much better, safer, and cleaner job of putting up a route on rappel than they can on lead. They can also take the time to think about setting a route that will serve other people, instead of merely trying not to break their own neck and making their own accomplishment. If, on a given crag, there were going to be a certain number of new routes with a certain number of bolts, I'd much rather see them developed on rappel than on lead. If you and other "traditionalists" want to control who gets to put up routes and how many bolts they can use, lets have that discussion rather than some outdated and distracting discussion about leadership style.

Pope- I have no interest in stifling conflicting points of view, nor in stifling Dwayner. I enjoy the debate, whether it is about saving grams in your pack, the Iraq war, or bolting practices. Not only do I enjoy it, but my views on these topics have changed after I've been able to exchange some thoughtful discussion with other members of this site who hold viewpoints I wouldn't encounter elsewhere, except perhaps on some bumper sticker or something. However, all of our ability to interact is compromised when someone seeks nothing more than to disrupt the discussion and draw attention to themselves. Puget is right on the money when he notes that Dwayner has some robotic obsession so that every time the word "bolt" is mentioned, he fires up the same antagonistic response that may or may not have anything to do with the discussion, and which he cannot defent when questioned on the logic or what he is stating. Are you, too, on Dwayner's "Team Robitic Nonsense," or do you simply have a temporary reading comprehension problem? I have stated, every time we have this discussion, that I believe Dwayner has a point - but it is his method of delivery that I find totally inane. He's a college professor, for god's sake. He must know how to forumlate and present an idea without being antagonistic about it, and how to participate in a discussion in a manner that is intended to promote the exchange and consideration of new information. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask and expect him to be able to make his points without being a complete jerk.

What would you do without your evil homonym? Maybe I should get one of those.

Jay- I actually DO believe that Bush and his buddies are making national policy decisions for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and that big money interests carry an inordinate amount of interest in this administration's White House. I also believe that Rumsfeld et all show a maniacal desire to exercise world domination, and that this is a serious threat to world peace. In short, I DO believe all that stuff so Maybe I should sign up for the New Federalist. I'm sorry, but its been a long week and I cannot muster up the energy to go into your economic analsis. Maybe next time, or maybe somebody else will take you up on that.

Fairweather, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your Dalai Lama thing. I didn't know you expected a response from me on that particular post. Am I supposed to tell you whether I agree with the Dalai Lama or whether his reported statements impact my sense of whether or not our invasions were justified? The answer is no. I don't think we set out to liberate Afghanistan and unless we change course pretty quick, I don't think we will be seen to have done so when historians look back on it. Yes, Taliban is out - for now - and some As queda training camps are gone, and some bad guys have been killed.... Iraq? I still think we should not have gone in when we did but I agree it is not over yet. About the UN- We thumb our nose at the UN whenever it suits our purposes, ignore it most of the rest of the time, and occasionally ask everybody ELSE in the world to go along with it. I haven't studied UN history all that much, but even when we support some UN policy, I think we usually don't lend all that much military support to their objectives. You tell me if I am wrong. About Al queda - Is Fox news or wherever you get your information really that distorted? As queda continues to carry out bombings around the world, and I think that even Bush's people pretty much acknowledge that they are as much of a threat now as they were before 911, while they do at the same time try to say we've made progress. And lots of people are saying that we've given them a big boost with our war on terrorism that they can characterize as a war on Islam. So you respond to a couple of my points. Thanks. But don't take up Mountain Goat's style: his responses were exhausting, many didn't make any sense at all, and he often completely failed to address the main points made by his adversaries.

Active posters on this site climb at all levls of technical difficulty. Some of those with the biggest mouths rarely climb anything that most of us would recognize as technical at all, and there are plenty of folks interested in moderate peak-bagging and easy rock climbs.

Fairweather, did you or did you not say that you thought that I don't think I really took your argument all that far out of context – certainly no further out than my attempt at mocking humor alluded to. You complain about my debate style in highlighting what I find to be the most absurd parts of your arguments. Let me point out something about your style: you "typically" fail to respond to my arguments altogether. For example, in this thread alone, did you ever answer my question whether part of the ineffectiveness of the UN that you complain about has to do with the fact that we don't support the UN? Did you ever answer my question about whether your claim that we have rendered Al Queda less effective may be wishful thinking on your part? Or my argument that you are looking for a much more slanted set of information about the world than those evil liberals you oh so despise?

Princess Mountain (a snow/ice/rock route climbed with cc.com's Caveman and David Parker) in the Coast Range. Sloan Peak, with Wotan of Ballard, in the Cascades, in February. Jacob's Ladder (a rock route climbed with half of pub club), in Darrington.

Sorry, Fairweather, if you think I misquoted you. I DO think it is rediculous to suggest that Pinochet may have saved thousands or millions of lives by killing communists. Where do you get this stuff? And no, I don't think I took JayB out of context. He plainly responded to what he imagined to be the assertion that the only reason we invaded Iraq was to take their oil.

Sign me up.

Glasskisser- I generally agree with your comments in this last exchange, but I want to quibble with a couple of minor points: (1) I don't think it is quite right to say that only low end climbers care about bolts. You are right, perhaps, that those who yell the loudest about bolting tend to be less talent in the technical rock realm and that is no surprise: to get to the upper eschelon of the sport you almost have to train at sport crags and gyms. But is not the same as saying all anti-bolt people are suck climbers. (2) the stars that you mention are not too bad on this issue, but top climbers can in fact get very judgmental of others. Those who decry the modern trend toward bolting everything in sight have a valid issue, and I don't think it is productive to put them down for the same reason that I don't like to see Dwayner spray his derisive rhetoric about what cowards the sport climbers are.

That won't work. I'd have to start arguments with myself or, I suppose, I could give my id and password to all the usual suspects.....

Dwayner - When you bring up the exact same tirade in every conceiveable thread, just because the word "Bolt" was mentioned somewhere, and not whether it has anything at all to do with the topic, you are not expressing any "legitimate climber-related viewpoint." You are spraying. Take it to spray, or I will continue to wonder if banning you might be appropriate. LIke I said - I think you make some valid points. Just don't be a - what was that word ChucK said I should call somebody - f***nut?

RuMR- I agree - sort of. I have appreciated Dwayner's willingness to hang in there with his position, and I have at times also enjoyed his condescending insults about the pad people and the sport climbing cowards. But I believe that, as exemplified in this threat, he often attempts to provoke people for absolutely no reason and he really has no point at all but, as Peter Puget has point out, to draw attention to himself. He is really trying to ruin an otherwise good discussion. I agree that Dwayner is an asset on this site and that is why I said that I would like to ban him only temporarily so that he might be able to reflec on the matter and come back able to show some discretion as to where and when he should piss on an ongoing discussion.

Dwayner, I'm sorry to say this, but I think perhaps you should be banned from this site temporarily. You need to figure out that even your fans are by now probably tired of you pathetic grandstanding, and you constant attempt to antagonize is not unlike some of the juvenile antics that have gotten others shut down.

I agree in part with Glasskisser's frustration that the Access Fund has not been able to do more, but I think they probably need more of our support, rather than less. And if somebody wants to take up a collection and fire up a legal effot or start their own lobbying group, or work on local issues at an even more local level, go for it. But I sure hope we can keep our own internal issues (e.g. bolting, or style ethics, or personality conflicts or....) to ourselves.

JayB- Are you just playing dumb here, or are you totally unable to consider that there could be more than one reason behind any given action? It is not all-or-nothing, here, but there are a lot of friends and former employers of the highest level Bush administration officials, and a lot of very big donors, who are making a ton of money on this whole thing. And the at least some of the Democrats have pointed that out.

JayB I don't think anybody ever said that Perhaps you are arguing with yourself here. And, by the way, you are repeating yourself.

As far as I know, from what I've seen in Washington, the Access Fund "strategy" at the local level has been to try to get climbers and land managers to work together, by setting up or at least attending and trying to help facilitate public meetings where there were user conflicts (e.g. Frenchmen's Coulee), making direct contact with land managers and encouraging them to plan for climbing wiht climbers' access in mind and, where possible, trying to get work projects going so that climbers could take direct responsibility for helping solve impact issues identified by the land managers. Personally, I don't think any of these strategies is wrong. One problem they have had, and continue to have is that climbers are generally an unruly bunch, and there is a lot of petty infighting in the climbing community so we just can't seem to organize. I don't know how or whether they could have done better to change this, and I don't know how active or successful they have been in trying to effect changes in land management policy from the top levels of land management downward. If you don't think they have been effective enough, that may or may not be a reason to withdraw your support. From my perspsective, the small annual membership fee is probably money well spent, and I wish more people would get involved.

An increasingly rare characteristic, I'm finding. Does gym and sport climbing develop the proclivity toward hanging around wasting time, and only looking ahead a few steps at a time, or is there something else going on?

Babnik- Do you understand the meaning of the word "sympathy?"

Greg, Re-read my post. I did not suggest they didn't know what they signed up for or that they shouldn't be expected to fulfill their commitment. Is it naive to think that a large number of them at least hoped, if they didn't out-and-out expect, that they'd complete their time without having to spend a year (or more) getting shot at in Iraq? Can't you find even the slightest bit of sympathy for those who gambled and lost?